Opinions differ on allowing women in military combat

Friday

Jan 25, 2013 at 12:01 AMJan 25, 2013 at 11:08 AM

A decision to allow women to serve in combat roles should provide advancement opportunities for women looking at making a career in the military, say some Gaston County residents with military backgrounds.

Diane Turbyfill

A decision to allow women to serve in combat roles should provide advancement opportunities for women looking at making a career in the military, say some Gaston County residents with military backgrounds.

Byron Toole, a retired Navy pilot who now heads up the JROTC at South Point High School, called this week’s decision exciting news.

“I think that during my career I saw women become pilots like me; I saw women go out on ships like me,” Toole said. “In my experience they’ve served as well as any man, and better than some.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made the announcement Thursday. It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy SEALs or the Army's Delta Force.

The decision affects up to 230,000 battlefront posts that were previously only open to men.

The historic change, which was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.

Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level.

Combat in Iraq and Afghanistan propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers. The positions were often attached to battalions, not formally assigned. So though women weren’t assigned as an infantryman, they could fly helicopters supporting the unit, or provide medical aid if troops were injured.

There has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.

OneGazette reader agrees with that belief.

When The Gazette asked readers on Facebook their opinion on the subject, Rhonda Anderson had this to say:

“There are reasons our military is a strong force. Men act differently when women are added to the equation… Just having those women there puts all of our soldiers at a higher risk. Not to mention the cost associated with simply keeping them separated,” Anderson wrote. “I am a veteran, a wife, and a mother. I truly feel like much of the downfall of our society has come from the feminist movement. God created us differently.”

In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.

Gazette reader Todd Criswell expressed that concern.

“Be careful what you ask for. The number one reason women are not in combat roles now is the forthcoming public outcry when coffins come back from Afghanistan filled with mothers, sisters and daughters. Living in combat conditions is not something to aspire to . . . even for a man,” he wrote.

David Rogers of Gastonia served in the Air Force for 20 years.

Rogers said women have really been in combat for years and that the announcement just formalized what’s already happening.

He said if someone can do the job, they should have the opportunity.

“Regardless of gender, if they can perform the task necessary to get the job done, it makes no difference,” he said. “It’s the right thing to do.”

Toole said gender restrictions shouldn’t stunt a person’s career. He said in the past women struggled to become admirals in the Navy because they couldn’t command a ship. That policy has also changed, he said.

If a woman is capable of the leadership role, she should have the opportunity, Toole said.

The change won't take place overnight: Service chiefs will have to develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case that some positions should remain closed to women.

Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 U.S. service members who have been killed, 152 have been women.

The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.

The Associated Press contributed to this article. You can reach Diane Turbyfill at 704-869-1817.